1. Field of the Invention
This invention has relation to a restraining shield which is nominally held in a stowed position up against the ceiling of a vehicle and is moved into a restraining position responsive to change of a vehicle condition such as attitude or momentum of predetermined magnitude.
2. Description of the Prior Art.
Lap belts and shoulder harnesses properly positioned with respect to a vehicle occupant have been demonstrated and acknowledged to be extremely important factors in reducing the amount and seriousness of injuries and in reducing fatalities in connection with motor vehicle crashes.
Because of the failure of average and careless vehicle drivers to "put on" such restraints and to insist that their passengers put on such restraints every time they enter their motor vehicles, these belts and harnesses have been largely ineffective, even though, by action of law, they must be present, and, in many jurisdictions, they must be fastened.
In an effort to achieve some measure of safety for vehicle occupants, particularly in head-on crashes, Congress has required that a passive restraining belt or an explosive device be installed in motor vehicles. The explosive device, until the present invention, was designed to be tripped or triggered by a sharp change in enertia and would substantially instantaneously fill the space between the vehicle occupant and the windshield and dash of the vehicle to absorb some of the force of the momentum of the vehicle occupant as that occupant is thrown toward the front. Such devices are commonly known as "air bags", are expensive to install, are expensive to maintain and reload after being exploded, and are susceptible to accidental discharge in less than crash situations. U.S. Pat. No. 4,449,728 to Pilatzki, granted May 22, 1984, discloses one such device.
Many attempts have been made to devise a passive restraining belt system and apparatus which will be in clearing relationship to a vehicle occupant when that occupant enters the vehicle and takes a position in the seat of the vehicle, and which will move automatically into restraining relationship with respect to that occupant before the vehicle moves forward. Such prior art devices are to some extent operative; but for one reason or another, have not become generally accepted and used.
The following U.S. patents disclose such structures: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,583,726 to Lindblad, granted June 8, 1971; 3,679,229 to Westrate, granted July 25, 1972; 3,680,883 to Keppel et al, granted Aug, 1, 1972; 3,727,944 to Wise, granted Apr. 17, 1973; 3,770,078 to Keppel et al, granted Nov. 6, 1973; 3,770,294 to Hammer, granted on Nov. 6, 1973; 3,827,714 to Lefeuvre, granted Aug. 6, 1974; 3,831,974 to Keppel, granted Aug. 27, 1974; 3,833,239 to Conen, granted Sept. 3,1974; 3,840,249 to Strom, granted Oct. 8, 1974; 3,863,983 to Wriedt, granted Feb. 4, 1975; 3,899,042 to Bonar, granted Aug. 12, 1975; 3,914,254 to Shaw et al, granted Oct. 21, 1975; 3,968,978 to Hayashi, granted July 13, 1976; 4,193,614 to Felsing granted Mar. 18, 1980; 4,394,035 to Sato, granted July 19, 1983.
A particularly serious problem arises in the case of a vehicle crash which involves small children. In many jurisdictions, some kind of an infant seat restraining device has been mandated by law. U.S. Pat. No. 4,345,791 to Bryans et al, granted Aug. 24, 1982, discloses such a device. The effectiveness of such restraints, of course, depend on whether the adult traveling with the child has taken the time and effort to properly lock the child into the restraint; and depends on whether the child has been able to wiggle out of the restraint or partway out of the restraint before a crash occurs.
Children that are unrestrained in the back seat, for example, have been severely and even fatally injured during crashes by being catapulted up over the back of the front seat and into or through the windshield. Before the present invention, there was no device known to the applicant and those in privity with him which would position a barrier between the top of the front seat and the vehicle roof at the time of the crash to prevent a child (or even packages or other objects in the back seat) from being thrown to the front of the car.
In addition to the "air bag" restraints mentioned above, a number of other passenger restraint safety systems have been devised which are designed to be brought into position at the time of a crash. These U.S. patents include: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,889,970 to Astheimer et al, granted June 17, 1975; 4,099,743 to Non, granted July 11, 1978; 4,511,180 to Klaus, granted Apr. 16, 1985; 4,552,381 to Schlanger, granted Nov. 12, 1985; and 4,569,534 to Nalbandyan, granted Feb. 11, 1986.
At least several patents disclose restraint systems which block the driver's view forward until the driver moves the apparatus into restraining position after being seated in the car. These U.S. patents include: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,881,744 to Tupper, granted May 6, 1975; and 3,929,349 to Schubert, granted Dec. 30, 1975.
To bring a seat belt into position once a driver or passenger is seated, a wide variety of seat belt retractors have been created. One of these of these is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,669,751 to Unger, granted June 2, 1987.
It has been recognized in the prior art that it is highly desirable to be able to release any restraining arrangement after a crash in the event that the restrained vehicle occupant is unable to make this release. A patent concerned with this problem is U.S. Pat. No. 4,272,104 to Kuny, granted June 9, 1981.
What was needed before the present invention were passive restraining barrier arrangements which could be held in stowed position along the surface of a vehicle ceiling; which would automatically be brought into restraining positions upon the occurrence of a vehicle crash or other violent change of vehicle momentum; which could be easily tested in advance, over and over again, by any person capable of driving the vehicle; and which could be reinstalled from its restraining to its stowed position after such testing without replacement of parts and without any damage to the arrangement.
A preliminary search specific to this particular invention was not made of the records of the USPTO. The prior art listed above was from a computer search for this invention and from a collection of prior art available to applicant's attorneys because of previous work on vehicle restraining systems relating to different inventive concepts.
Applicant and those in privity with him are aware of no prior art which is closer than that set out above, and are aware of no prior art which anticipates the claims herein.